Did we need the same type statistics to restrict air travel in this country after 9/11? Why was that acceptable, but controls for guns is not? Why is one a ‘knee jerk’ reaction, and the other is not?
Oh that’s brilliant.
Uhm… I dunno. Maybe because “Bans” don’t work?
Uhm pssst, come here
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5021762560458816&pid=15.1Oh oh I know!
"In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal…
In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States** – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity –** and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.
At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlements state. At no point have its members evidenced any concern for sustaining limited government and protecting the rights of individuals. It did not cross the minds of these prelates that the liberty of conscience which they had grown to cherish is part of a larger package – that the paternalistic state, which recognizes no legitimate limits on its power and scope, that they had embraced would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate whom it chose to teach its doctrines and how, more generally, it would conduct its affairs.
I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it."
Oh wait.
Never mind.
NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS! Don’t you listen to what they tell you?
But but but, Prodigal Son 1 says we should trust our Marxist Over Lords!
And
what is it about those boxcutter thingys that makes those peace loving Muslims go all Jihad?"NOBODY, is this your guarantee or Obama’s or Cardinal Dolan’s
In NYC EMS had to transport, but a PO was required to ride with the patient. Why you bring that up and not discuss institutionalizing EDP’s is beyond me. When I talk about disarming PO’s and Executive protection, I was being very sarcastic. All non felons in the US have legitimate authority to have and carry weapons, it is the 2nd amendment. As far as magazine limits, it makes no sense. You can reload in a second. I have my 9mm service weapon. It has 15 in the mag and one in the chamber. If it had 10 round mags, I would just be inconvenienced by carrying a spare mag. It has no bearing on how many rounds you can get off. I personally prefer to carry a revolver. I can reload that fast as well. You mention assault weapons, they are all illegal, unless you have an ATF license for it. An assault weapon has the capability of firing in full automatic mode.
In NY Gov Cuomo recently signed the “Safe Act” it restricts semi auto’s to 7 round magazines, making many semi autos illegal.
That’s another great point msokeefe.
Let’s start by recognizing that the cardinal, like most people, doesn’t know what an assault weapon is and go from there. What he appears to be referring to are semi-automatic rifles so is he asking for a ban on the private ownership of those guns? Is this a moral question? What is the moral answer? If he doesn’t want to ban them yet he thinks they contribute to a culture of death then what kind of moral sense can we take from his position? If more people are killed by hand guns than rifles by at least an order of magnitude then don’t hand guns contribute to a culture of death and shouldn’t they be banned as well? Is that a moral question? If it is then why wasn’t the cardinal more explicit in saying so and if it isn’t then why did he imply that it was?
Does this mean supporting all of the proposals in the Obama legislation? Is it a sin to oppose any of them? Some of them? All of them? The point is that if these are moral choices then making the wrong choice is not simply a mistake it is a sin, but how can the cardinal allow us to sin by not telling us what the correct moral choices are?
You don’t understand the question. No one is actually arguing that killing isn’t a moral issue, the debate is about how to resolve a problem in which people are being killed and it doesn’t matter whether the deaths are caused by cancer or an AR15, the only question is how to minimize the number of deaths and my repeated question is: where is the moral dilemma in solving that problem?
I was only relaying that I understood the mental illness problem and agree with you on that subject, as I believe Cardinal Dolan does as well.
I don’t think it helps to try and define what a real assault weapon is vs. the general public’s interpretation. It is certain semi-automatic rifles being used. Thank God they can’t get their hands on the real deal.
The problem that is causing innocent deaths in the small percentage of shootings you are obsessed with, is mental illness.
This thread is about what Cardinal Dolan said and it is surely relevant to point out the mis-perceptions he has.
Just so … and what is being judged here is not the solutions we propose but the alleged intent behind them. The argument being made is not “Your solution won’t work” but rather “You reject my solution because you don’t care.”
No one has ever made that suggestion. If this is what your argument is reduced to you can understand why your position is unpersuasive.
What part of our faith can tell us whether banning “assault rifles” is a good policy? That is no more a moral question than deciding whether it is faster to stay on the interstate or take a short cut over back country roads. We are faced with practical decisions, not moral ones.
This is a very reasonable argument for just so long as you don’t claim that we have a moral obligation to accept your position. I think you recognize that your claims are not informed by your faith but by your knowledge. The exact same is true of Cardinal Dolan’s claims.
And I can point out polls that indicate a growing majority favoring same-sex “marriage” too.
Yes of course.
